Coffee and Intellectual Property

cervesaebraciator writes "A 'Coffee Branding Workshop,' sponsored by the World Intellectual Property Organization, was held recently in Arusha City, at which the Director General of the Tanzania Coffee Board presented a paper titled 'Supporting the Coffee Sector with added Value Products Through Intellectual Property and Branding.' The paper encouraged the use of intellectual property claims, including trademarks, copyrights, patents, and designs, as sources of income which can be used to support agriculture in Africa. The Director General claimed that '[Intellectual property rights] are the basis for today's knowledge based economy and international competitiveness.' This is no doubt related to a broader effort to advance western style intellectual property in Africa through claims of the benefits it offers agriculture. Promoting western style intellectual property law as a means of third world development is a popular strategy for WIPO, the only branch of the UN to have significant wealth deriving from contributions independent of Member States. On a related note of interest to Slashdotters, there is a history of tension between WIPO advocates and FOSS advocates." I hope they take advantage of the marketing possibilities offered by civet-processed coffee.

Comments

Bullshit.

[pla]

Whether or not you can extract (and I choose that word deliberately) wealth from a nation through the fiction we call "intellectual property" has nothing to do with the long-term viability of that concept.

When people starve to death because Monsanto won't let them grow patented plants, we need to put the bastards up against the wall.
When people starve to death because Goldman Sachs has cornered the Red Spring Wheat market, we need to put the bastards up against the wall.
When people die of malaria because Novartis would rather profit than save lives, we need to put the bastards up against the wall.

"Intellectual property" literally means nothing more than "we value dollars over your life". Anyone using that as a defense for their actions counts as nothing short of a race traitor - To the human race.

The sooner We The People stop putting up with this shit, the sooner we can get back to improving our world rather than making sure the "right" people get paid for improvements 20 years ago.

Re:Bullshit.

[JakartaDean]

"Whether or not you can extract (and I choose that word deliberately) wealth from a nation through the fiction we call "intellectual property" has nothing to do with the long-term viability of that concept.

When people starve to death because Monsanto won't let them grow patented plants, we need to put the bastards up against the wall. When people starve to death because Goldman Sachs has cornered the Red Spring Wheat market, we need to put the bastards up against the wall. When people die of malaria because Novartis would rather profit than save lives, we need to put the bastards up against the wall.

"Intellectual property" literally means nothing more than "we value dollars over your life". Anyone using that as a defense for their actions counts as nothing short of a race traitor - To the human race.

Nice rant. In many cases I'd agree with what you're saying, stripped of hyperbole. But in this case, asserting trademark rights (intellectual property) is a way to protect the poor coffee farmers. If they want to grow their traditional coffee, or grow "Fair Trade" coffee in a more sustainable manner, they need the protection of a trademark, or some cheap low-life grower from somewhere else will start marketing "Tanzania" coffee with a lousy taste, killing off their future sales, and perhaps their wives and children. IP is exactly what these farmers need to grow their business, and perhaps to survive (I don't know Tanzania).

Re:Bullshit.

[gr8_phk]

With plants and crops, the only thing Monsanto (or anyone) can patent is it's own genetic trait stack lines or asexually produced plants from a parent plant.

But Monsanto plants can and do breed with other plants. Monsanto has sued people who have not paid for use of their patents when those peoples crops became tainted. Sure a lot of people pay for and use them, but it's absurd to patent something that is self replicating in the field. The way you describe it, a patent is not needed because only the producer has the secret recipe. And this is entirely beside the points raised by those "scare-mongering" about GMO foods.

Re:When are people going to learn

[bill_mcgonigle]

where profit means little, and the freedy people (Ferengi) are forbidden interlopers

Profit is just a price signal, it sends information. The problem with IP is that it gives governments an excuse to oppress the freedoms of the masses to reward the few.

Besides, Star Trek governments execute people who build robots. It's not all sunshine and roses there.

kopi luwak, aka cat shit coffee

[circletimessquare]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kopi_Luwak

the ultimate real world "emperor's new clothes" joke

1. the dutch colonists didn't let the indonesian farmers enjoy their own coffee crop (consider them lucky, the dutch committed genocide to protect their nutmeg trade: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banda_Islands#Massacre_of_the_Bandanese ). the farmers knew jungle civet cats raided the crops and ate coffee beans and shat them out mostly undigested. so, to enjoy coffee, the farmers processed cat shit to take the coffee beans out and brew coffee

cut to: clueless westerners, seeing locals drinking cat shit coffee, and thinking this is some exotic folkloric way to enhance coffee taste, start clamoring for this "authentic" way to enjoy coffee. add some marketing mumbo jumbo bullshit (i mean, catshit) about the civet cat digestive enzymes enhancing taste, and you have the birth of the world's most expensive coffee

rich morons deserve to fooled and fleeced of their money

in other words, i support the use of intellectual property law by poor states against the assholes who made up this lame legal framework. intellectual property law is of course a joke. and those who created it should, and shall, suffer for foisting this bullshit on the world

be careful what you create, western legal trolls. it has a way of coming back to bite you in the ass (out of which comes delicious coffee)

Re:You might like to read up this study

[arth1]

Except there were more medicinal compounds patented BEFORE patents were introduced.
http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/papers/ip.ch.9.m1004.pdf

And in Italy there was a measurable slowdown in development JUST AFTER INTRODUCTION of patents for medicines. Profits went up, new drugs went down. They simply didn't have to try so hard to compete.

Also, a large part of the medications used today originated at publicly funded universities. The pharmaceutical companies' contribution is often to change a tiny bit, like the delivery mechanism, and then fight and bribe tooth and nail to get their own patented variety approved by the governments and the competitors' versions stalled.
There wouldn't be over 1200 registered pharmaceutical lobbyists in Washington if they didn't get even more return for that investment.

I used to use a cough decongestant made by a handful of pharmacists, who had made it for about two generations. Then came a big company and demanded a ban - it ate part of their market share in certain areas. It got banned because the combination of two ingredients in a specific ratio was "untested" - despite having been sold for well near 40 years with no documented ill effects, and sold in almost, but not quite, the same ratio by the big pharma company. It wasn't a consumer concern, it wasn't an FDA concern - it got pushed by a single company who wanted to sell their product.
Yes, sure, they're contributing... To my hatred of them and everything they stand for. I refuse to buy stock in any pharmaceutical company, no matter whether it's more profitable. Cause unlike them, I have scruples.

Re:You might like to read up this study

[Crypto Gnome]

I have scruples.

You should see your pharmacist, I hear these days there's a cream for that.

Re:If they start patenting coffee ...

[TapeCutter]

That is not what is being proposed, what you have is a slippery slope argument (AKA, logical fallacy). Soooo, what's your solution to the real problem? - By that I mean, if I spend millions advertising "Fair Trade coffee" why should someone who has not spent a penny be able to use my trademark to sell coffee produced by child slaves? How about medical supplies? The problem in Africa with medical supplies is not generic medicine that actually works, it's FAKE medicine in branded packaging, mainly imported from India and China, ie: what could possibly go wrong if a middleman fills the bags with tap water rather than saline solution?

A brand or trademark is basically the same as a signature, it uniquely identifies who to praise/blame. At the end of the day the only reason anyone copies other people's trademark/signature is because their own trademark/signature is worthless. Why is it worthless? - Could it be because they have not invested the effort required to make it worth something?

Do people who issue trademarks make bad decisions? Sure, I'm still pissed we allowed the Yanks to trademark "Ugg Boots" in the 90's when small Aussie businesses had been commonly advertising sheep skin boots as "Ugg Boots" for at least 20yrs. However poor decisions by themselves do not invalidate the basic premise that I have a "natural right"* to my mark as something that uniquely identifies who I am and what I do. The ingredients and service you get with my espresso in my (imaginary) cafe may be exactly the same thing as the guy next door, but that's not the point. The point (and the moral) is that you should not pretend to be someone or something that you are not, from a purely moral POV using someone else's trademark is clearly fraudulent behaviour.

* - Natural right: As in, a dog has a natural right (and urge) to mark a tree in a way that makes the owner of the mark crystal clear to all other dogs who visit that tree.

Re:If they start patenting coffee ...

[silentcoder]

But you're actually making part of our argument for us. There is no such thing as "intellectual property" and when people use the word they conflate a number of laws wanting us to think of them as similar when in fact they have almost nothing in common.
Copyright - automatic, lasts a long time, applies to execution of ideas only.
Patents - not automatic, lasts a relatively short time, applies to ideas themselves rather than to execution
Trademark - not automatic, lost if not defended, can last indefinitely - applies to neither ideas nor execution.

In fact trademarks are not a law of benefit to trademark holders at all (at least not in it's intention), it's intention is to be a consumer protection law - so that when you buy something you can trust it's the real thing (what you describe is a case for proper trademark enforcement which most FOSS people have no problem with whatsoever - indeed I've never met one who did).

These things are radically different sets of laws with completely different goals and implement in very different (often completely contradictory) manners. Trademarks can't be called a property by any reasonable measure and in fact unlike the others cannot be said to even enable market-forming, they are purely there to protect consumer's interests - not those of trademark HOLDERS but those of ordinary citizens. They are also highly restricted because they apply to words - so they don't get turned into a form of censorship. This is why a trademark is limited to a certain field of endeavour (a trademark on the name windows in computing cannot be enforced on companies that make glass panes to fit into holes in your wall or vice versa), and why they are lost if not defended and if (despite defending them) they become common-usage terminology (this is why Johnson and Johnson lost the trademark on "band-aid", "kleenex" was lost in the same way).

There is no way to lose your copyright before it expires. You can sue somebody for violating a patent even if a billion other people did it and you never sued any of them before.

See - these things are completely separate things and should be discussed and debated separately. When we discuss patent reform, throwing copyright into the discussion will only confuse the issue since they are almost entirely opposite in their structure. If we discuss trade-mark enforcement we have literally NOTHING to gain by conflating patent and copyright issues with that.
I live in Africa and I've lived through some of the problems you describe. I contracted malaria in Nigeria and know the fear of wondering whether the malaria tablets the doctor prescribed and the pharmacy sold me are actually the real thing or just repackaged aspirins. I'm in favor of strong trademark enforcement to prevent such things. At the same time I'm in favor of radical patent reform and possibly even abolishment.
I really hope my country remains firm and refuses to allow software patents forever, because that is a MAJOR industrial advantage for us. A US company cannot sue us for patent infringement (which every program in the world does) but we COULD sue them - and since they cannot then blackmail us - they leave us alone. We're one of the last countries where a software company doesn't have to compile a huge stockpile of patents just to survive.